"We do not torture." George W. Bush. "Legal landscape has changed and we have not done it for 5 years" (regarding waterboarding) Michael Hayden, current CIA Director testifying before a Judiciary committee on February 7 in justifying the admission that the CIA has indeed conducted waterboarding.

This from Wikipedia: The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. Waterboarding has been considered torture for years, even stemming from the Spanish Inquisition. It has been outlawed by the UN Convention on Torture. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to state that waterboarding is torture when he testified before the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 7 and during his confirmation hearings. He also said he would not appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the CIA's destruction of the tapes that allegedly show the waterboarding of Guantanamo detainees.

He is making the legal argument that because waterboarding was deemed legal by a Justice Department opinion it would not be fair to prosecute those who carried out the torture since they were following that opinion, even though there is precedent that the United States has concluded in the past that waterboarding is a form of torture and therefore illegal. Does any of that make sense?

What has this country become when the Attorney General who is supposed to be working for the People of the United States and whose job is to uphold the laws of this country is now defending the White House against what is clearly seen to be the authorization of illegal acts that somehow are made to seem legal because of opinions handed down by the same Justice Department.

Where is the recourse for illegal acts? When the Judiciary Committee tries to bring these issues to court the perpetrators of these acts cry Executive Privilege and the Attorney General upholds that. Are there now no laws that cannot be subverted by this White House and its appointees? Are there no Congressional Bills that cannot be either vetoed or ignored by presidential signing statements? Is there anything short of impeachment that can return us to Constitutional legality?

I firmly believe that the job description for Attorney General under this administration is "find a way to make our illegal acts legal". And in the same vein, why in the world should telecommunication companies be given immunity from prosecution and law suits for committing illegal acts by spying on customers without a warrant? Not all of the companies acted on the White House directive and all were free to question that directive but those that chose to spy anyway should defend themselves in a court of law.

The obvious answer is that if taken to court they would have to testify that the White House directed them to commit the illegal acts and then those in the White House would they themselves be subject to prosecution.

APEX-PINNACLE OF HYPOCRISY

Bush says that Congress must approve the FISA bill immediately because we are in grave danger from a terrorist attack PERIOD! But if it contains immunity for the telecommunication companies HE WILL VETO IT. I guess he feels immunity for his buddies in the companies is more important than YOUR SAFETY.